Islam; my faith; and other faiths

[Mister Agenda]

You get rid of some of Islam's worst baggage if you drop the hadiths, in particular a certain pre-teen bride. 'Quran-only' is an approach I would like to see become more widespread among Muslims.

The Quran allows you to divorce your wife after three months if she has not yet started menstruating. That means that little girls are fair game even without the Hadith. It makes sense that a pedophile would include such a rule. 

Also, The Quran is so full of xenophobic hatred of the unbeliever that it makes Mein Kampf look like the care bears. A Quran only approach is a marginal improvement at best but it's never going to happen anyway.

The Quran forbids divorcing your wife while she's actually menstruating. It has nothing to do with her being too young to menstruate. The Quran is no more hostile to unbelievers than the OT. It's difficult to estimate the number of Quranists so there's not much hard information there, though the number of Quranist organizations is increasing. What's your record on accurately predicting long-term trends in religions?

[Crunchy]

Mister Agenda Wrote:
The Quran forbids divorcing your wife while she's actually menstruating. It has nothing to do with her being too young to menstruate. 

Quran 65:4
And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.

The rule for divorce is that there is a three month waiting period for those women too old to menstruate and the same waiting period for those too young to menstruate. This is how this this has been interpreted by Islamic clerics. 

The Quran is no more hostile to unbelievers than the OT. 

Why bring up the bible?
If I told you Pol Pot was a terrible person would it help if you pointed out that Stalin was as well? Would that make Pol Pot any better? Why are you behaving like an apologist?

[Crunchy]

AtlasS33 Wrote:
Wrong! I didn’t ask you if the Quran contains killing
https://atheistforums.org/thread-48676-p...pid1544873

Once again I have to thank you for proving my point for me. You make my job here much easier.
That link clearly shows that I pointed out that the Quran contains killing and not that it was a question.

Here are the questions from my very first post. You know, the questions you have been ducking this whole time.

How can you give your approval and support to so may evil ideas? Do you think that just redacting them from your mind somehow makes the problems disappear from the world outside your mind?

Quote:
You replied with some "good" quotes (as predicted) while completely ignoring all the vile and horrible parts in the Quran that says that the Kafir may be deceived, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and killed. Your "good" verses have been abrogated!

Broken record..

LOL thanks again for proving my point for me Mr. Broken record. You're really bad at this. The quote above is CLEARLY not a question. The lack of a question mark should have given it away.
Go on, keep trying to worm your way out of this.

[GrandizerII]

Mister Agenda Wrote:
The Quran forbids divorcing your wife while she's actually menstruating. It has nothing to do with her being too young to menstruate. 

Quran 65:4
And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.

The rule for divorce is that there is a three month waiting period for those women too old to menstruate and the same waiting period for those too young to menstruate. This is how this this has been interpreted by Islamic clerics.

That's one interpretation. Many Muslims interpret the verse as referring to women who no longer menstruate and adult women (not children) who have never menstruated due to some disorder or other reason.

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/1...age-claim/

[Crunchy]

The rule for divorce is that there is a three month waiting period for those women too old to menstruate and the same waiting period for those too young to menstruate. This is how this this has been interpreted by Islamic clerics.

That's one interpretation. Many Muslims interpret the verse as referring to women who no longer menstruate and adult women (not children) who have never menstruated due to some disorder or other reason.

https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/1...age-claim/

That's true. I can see why many Muslims would wish to distance themselves from this but I was replying to the charge that "It has nothing to do with her being too young to menstruate."
Clearly, that is exactly how it has been interpreted for many generations by many Imams, clerics and the culture in general and this still goes on today in unfortunately large numbers. I'm happy that some are trying to end this practice, but there is no sense in pretending it's not an Islamic practice rooted in the Quran and Muhammad's example.

[WinterHold]

The Hadith's main complex resides not just in its content; but also in the statements of its writers.

For example, Al Bukhari  ( which his Hadith compiling is recognized by all Sunni Muslims to be authentic and true in terms of dating back to the prophet ), he has rejected many Islamic paths and teachings in his time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_a...dith_works

given the fact that Bukhari rejected qiyas and other forms of ra'y completely.[15] Bukhari's positions have even been compared to those of Ibn Hazm.[16]

[/url]
Also; this link provides reasons to consider rejecting Hadiths:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Bukhari-an...ollections

Now; I present my case.

If Bukhari himself rejected teachings and other writing, and his publications contain weak and unreliable sources (according to some famous scholars like [url=https://islamqa.info/en/178907]Al-Albani , then why am I criticized harshly for abandoning the Hadith?

It cannot be trusted. Shiites and Sunnies should grow up and learn the manors of history compiling; if you asked me. Blowing up mosques and markets, and stabbing artists in the street in response to the way people differed in their view toward historiHcal text, is just barbaric and unethical.

Personally; I find the Quran more clear. The oldest version of the Quran matches the recorded era of prophet Mohammed, and the two pages match the Quran we have now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham...manuscript

I would hold on to those two leaves, that identically match the current ones; along with their carbon dating, more than I will hold to a Hadith book. 
It's clear: I like to trust stuff. Things that cannot be trusted annoy me in terms of faith.

About the menstruating. If it's impossible for females not to menstruate under any cause, then you have a case; Crunchy.
But there is already a medical condition that prevents some women from menstruating:

http://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/25-ye...wrong-with

http://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/06/12/amenorrhea/

http://ehealthforum.com/health/i-am-and-never-had-a-period-t270621.html

Why did your mind go to pedophilia ?
Doesn't that mean, that you may be loaded with right wing propaganda about Islam before searching?

Some women grow up and don't have the period. But they can love and get married.

[Crunchy]

 

It's clear: I like to trust stuff. Things that cannot be trusted annoy me in terms of faith.

Haaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahah:   Thanks for the laugh!

Why did your mind go to pedophilia ?
Doesn't that mean, that you may be loaded with right wing propaganda about Islam before searching?

Even though you won't answer my question, I'll answer yours.
My mind did not go to pedophelia, Muhammeds did as did the minds of the many Clerics and Imams who have interpreted the Quran in this way. It's not my interpretation that is the issue, it's theirs. It is irresponsible to deny the fact that child brides is an issue among Muslims and that this cultural problem stems from religious belief.

 
So once again (and this time it involves your ignoring of the child bride problem)
 

How can you give your approval and support to so may evil ideas? Do you think that just redacting them from your mind somehow makes the problems disappear from the world outside your mind?

[WinterHold]

 

It's clear: I like to trust stuff. Things that cannot be trusted annoy me in terms of faith.

Haaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahah:   Thanks for the laugh!

Nervous laugh; I assume?
Because of a forum debate?

Even though you won't answer my question, I'll answer yours.

My mind did not go to pedophelia, Muhammeds did as did the minds of the many Clerics and Imams who have interpreted the Quran in this way. It's not my interpretation that is the issue, it's theirs. It is irresponsible to deny the fact that child brides is an issue among Muslims and that this cultural problem stems from religious belief.

 
So once again (and this time it involves your ignoring of the child bride problem)

You see, the bold line in the quote is one track from the broken record.

Pedophilia exists in many cultures; even today. Take Japan for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ...Pedophilia

Pedophilia is a wrong thing only in this era. Back in the day, humans worldwide practiced the sickness, and gave allowance for it to be carved into the culture.
Islam demands the testimony of both parties in marriage. Kids' testimony is not legal. Case closed.

Sura 24, Page 354, The Quran:
( 33 )   But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess - then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.

The verse stated it explicitly. Muslim pedophiles lie about it; just like you lie about it. Case closed.

Mohammed is not responsible for the acts of these Imams. If that's a legal accusation, then we should name all Germans nazies , and all Americans as prosecutes of native Americans. Aren't you following the same footsteps of Shiites extremists, and Sunni extremists, who hate dead people and load the living for the opinions of the dead; load the dead for the mistakes of the living?

How can you give your approval and support to so may evil ideas? Do you think that just redacting them from your mind somehow makes the problems disappear from the world outside your mind?

Should we play a romantic right-wing anti-immigration anthem in the background?

I answered you before; but I will quote this verse because I didn't; I believe it's very obvious:

This verse:

Sura 2, Page 42, The Quran
( 256 )   There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

[Mister Agenda]

Mister Agenda Wrote:
The Quran forbids divorcing your wife while she's actually menstruating. It has nothing to do with her being too young to menstruate. 

Quran 65:4
And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.

The rule for divorce is that there is a three month waiting period for those women too old to menstruate and the same waiting period for those too young to menstruate. This is how this this has been interpreted by Islamic clerics. 

By Sunni clerics. Sunnis have a vested interest in making Aisha out to be as young as possible because it makes her 'transmission of the faith' more miraculous. Shia have a vested interest in making Aisha out to be older, to make it more reasonable that Ali transmitted the faith. As I'm neither Sunni or Shia, I have no vested interest in interpreting that surah according to Sunni precepts and since I think it is harmful and foolish to interpret it that way, I don't. Why would I want Muslims to interpret it that way? And Quranists observably reject that interpretation.

The Quran is no more hostile to unbelievers than the OT. 

Why bring up the bible?
If I told you Pol Pot was a terrible person would it help if you pointed out that Stalin was as well? Would that make Pol Pot any better? Why are you behaving like an apologist?

Why not bring up the Bible? If Jews and Christians can cope with having scriptures that tell them to murder unbelievers without following through on it, so can Muslims. They have just as much a right to cherry pick to fit into modernity as anyone else.

You're not just saying Pol Pot was a terrible person...you're making claims about why he was a terrible person, presumably because of communism. Comparing and contrasting him with Stalin who was also a communist leader to see if your claims hold water is perfectly appropriate.

I'm on the side of facts, justice, and progress and couldn't give less of a shit if that sometimes puts me on a different side than some fellow atheist. Islam isn't special. It's another fantasy sanctified by tradition that can be used to justify just about anything. Religions aren't their books, the books will say anything if you torture them enough. Religions are the people who claim them. The religion changes when the people do, not the other way around, and people (en masse, not as individuals, there are always outliers) change as a result of their geopolitical circumstances. The geopolitical circumstances in the Middle East and North Africa currently suck, and so there's a lot of trouble there, even though that's not where most Muslims actually live. Christians in the CAR and Buddhists in Myanmar are persecuting vulnerable Muslim populations not because Christians and Buddhists suck, but because the CAR and Myanmar suck. Problems aren't solved when you misidentify their roots. Religious primitivism and violence are symptoms of other problems; like war, poverty, political polarization, foreign exploitation, and inadequate education.

[Crunchy]

Mister Agenda Wrote:
I'm on the side of facts, justice, and progress

So am I.

I’ll start by addressing the fundamental mistake in everything you’ve written. You conflate people and religion.  You want us to treat all religions the same.. in the way that we treat all people the same. As equals. You want to grant religions equality. But ideologies, whether religious or secular are not equals. They are to be judged on their content not their mere existence.
This conflation error gives rise to the problem of granting religion a special privilege that we don’t grant to secular ideologies. This has been the cause of religion getting a free pass and you want to perpetuate this error. You refuse to hold religion to the same standards of thought and inquiry that we apply to secular ideologies because you think religion = people and that religious words don't matter. 

 It is in fact very important to make sure to separate people from ideology and not to lump them together in this careless fashion. For example, while it is OK to hold a belief that communism, and capitalism and fascism etc. are different from one another and to even conclude that one is better/worse, you want religious ideologies (which can be every bit as different from one another) to be treated as equals, the same way we treat people as equals. You’ve put religious ideologies on an unassailable pedestal. 

 It is also very important for anyone to understand that criticism of a religion and its sacred beliefs is NOT a blanket condemnation of all adherents. If you conflate race and religion as you do, of course you’re going to see it that way. This flawed way of thinking will lead you to see those who see Jainism as less violent than Islam as bigots. You literally think it’s the equivalent to seeing Asian people as less violent than black people since you think “Religions are the people who claim them.” 

No! Religions are not the people who claim them. Religions are a system of worship, they are not the biological worshippers themselves whose equality must be upheld. 
Please understand that when you conflate a religious ideology with people… you are allowing the ideology to escape the critical process that all ideologies must be subject to.
This can only lead you to the mistake of equating differentiation between religious ideologies with bigotry and that’s wrong.   
I am not in any way suggesting that all adherents to any religion will all behave the same just as all adherents to secular ideologies will not all behave the same. People should be treated as individuals while still recognizing that the widespread adoption of an ideology will have consequences concurrent with it’s themes and beliefs. 

I'm on the side of facts, justice, and progress and couldn't give less of a shit if that sometimes puts me on a different side than some fellow atheist. Islam isn't special.

Islam is different from Christianity which is different from Buddhism which is different from Humanism which is different from Jainism and so on. They are not all the same. They are not people. 

 It's another fantasy sanctified by tradition that can be used to justify just about anything. Religions aren't their books, the books will say anything if you torture them enough. Religions are the people who claim them. 

No, they are not people. Religions don’t just pop into people’s heads at birth. They are taught. They are codified into words and words matter. Religions are not all bad in the same way at the same time. 
You’re saying that words have no meaning and that the different scriptures have no essential content or character. That the religions themselves are meaningless and interchangeable.  
However, believers are shaped to different degrees by what religions teach. While there is diversity within religious traditions, that diversity is bounded by the broad parameters of the religion’s core teachings. Religious teachings actually have real content and that content will have real world consequences. There are few if any Polytheist Muslims because of the content of the Quran. This would not be the case if words had no meaning.

Here’s a thought experiment. Let’s say you were an intelligent psychopath who wanted to gather followers and conquer those around you.  You don’t have any religious beliefs but understand that religion can be used to manipulate people. In your possession is the Quran and the Tattvartha Sutra(from Jainism) 
If you are correct, then either could be used to advance your desire for conquest interchangeably. But you’re not correct. One of those texts teaches non-violence and the other teaches much violence. Even if they can each be twisted to some degree, one is clearly more amenable to violent conquest than the other. WORDS MATTER.

The religion changes when the people do, not the other way around, and people (en masse, not as individuals, there are always outliers) change as a result of their geopolitical circumstances.

It is a grave error to think that religion has zero influence and that politics is 100% responsible for human behavior. I’m not one to claim that religion is the cause of all evil, but to claim it has no influence is unsupported by the facts. You are once again giving religious ideology a free pass.

 The geopolitical circumstances in the Middle East and North Africa currently suck

And allot of that has to do with the ideas that have been ingrained into people by both secular and religious ideologies. I don’t blame religion 100% but I don’t exonerate it 100% either as you do.

Religious primitivism and violence are symptoms of other problems; like war, poverty, political polarization, foreign exploitation, and inadequate education.

This is once again giving religion a free pass. In your view, we can blame everything BUT religion for violence that is often overtly stated in the text. Religious violence and war are often caused by religious teachings and not by poverty, political polarization, foreign exploitation, or inadequate education.